MAKE THE UNITED NATIONS GREAT AGAIN:
RE-DISCOVER PACIFISM IN THE AGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Political Science (MSc)Specialization in Political Theory
Author: Bui Thach Hong Hung – s1007432
Supervisor: Prof. Marcel Wissenburg
17 August 2020
Nijmegen School of Management
Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Acknowledgement
I would like to show my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Marcel Wissenburg. Without his mentorship and inspiration, this thesis would not be present. Additionally, I also would like to pay my appreciation towards my editor Ms. Joana Purves, who dedicated her precious time to assist me with English.
Abstract
While peace could be considered a desirable goal in the international community, the normative framework of peace and peace movements have to face a significant number of challenges in the intellectual debate and practice. Normatively, while war and peace have always been seen as the two faces of the same coin, the phenomenon of war has continually gained more theoretical attraction than peace. Accordingly, many theoretical traditions have been used to justify the use of violence to resolve conflicts between political communities. Moreover, the dominance of realism in international relations contributes to the construction of the “realist world”, which would be normalized as the world. As a result, while peace would be considered more desirable, its pursuits both normatively and empirically gain limited success because of its idealist status. Academically, pacifism and its advocacy for peace are deemed too ideal to pursue, leading to its lack of visibility in the intellectual debate on war and peace. Empirically, while the United Nations (henceforth the UN) represents the almost-universal effort of international cooperation, it also has problems that could prevent it from fulfilling its mission as the peace guardian of the world. Nevertheless, the peace movement has new motivation from the human rights revolutions, which originated and motivated the United Nations. The new peace movement demands protection and nurtures human rights, creating an emerging source of pressure for change in the theoretical foundation of international relations and world governance. As the chief human rights regime, the United Nations should not only change to adapt to such desire, but it also should be the leader in the quest for a new goal, which is the pursuit of positive peace instead of negative peace. This thesis would argue that the United Nations should re-discover and re-apply pacifism in its peace-oriented operations.
Contents
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Chapter I:
Introduction
1
Chapter II:
Pacifism: An ethically desirable
and non-ideal normative framework of peace
6
Chapter III:
Contemporary debate on war and peace:
Re-examining the First Great Debate in IR
15
Chapter IV:
The United Nations and Human Rights Revolution
22
Chapter V:
Make the United Nations Great Again:
Re-discovering Pacifism in the Age of Human Rights
30
Chapter VI: Conclusion
37
Chapter I: Introduction
The adversarial relationship of war and peace could be demonstrated by the argument that peace has always been the desirable goal of humankind, while war should be restrained (Lee, 2012; Kellenberger, 2018). Indeed, as early as 1517, Dutch philosopher Desiderius Erasmus wrote “The Complaint of
Peace” to praise peace, which is “the fountain, the parent, the nurse, the patroness, the guardian of
every blessing which either heaven or earth can bestow” (Erasmus, 1795, pp. 2-3) as well as to ask for the abolishment of war as it is “the foul sink of sin as well as misery” (Erasmus, 1795, p. 91).
The argument against war could be originated from war’s destructive nature against “human welfare”, and its consequences could be long-lasting (Buckham, 1916, p. 89). Indeed, war “strips away our civilized adornments and reveals our nakedness. They describe that nakedness for us, not without a certain relish: fearful, self-concerned, driven, murderous” (Walzer, 2015, p. 4). Such destructive nature could be easily demonstrated by the vast number of deaths from mass killing, especially the murder of the innocents. Additionally, the practice of war also leads to human displacement and the demolition of economic resources, culture, and environment. Moreover, the end of the war may not lead to peace without suitable reconstruction and reconciliation resolutions. Indeed, the instability and injustices after war could plant the seeds for future armed conflict (Hedahl, Clark, & Beggins, 2017, p. 438). More importantly, the arms race to war not only asks for more financial investments on war instead of other social needs but also leads to the creation of higher destructive weapons. Hence, it is plausible to conclude that the practice of war is immoral and undesirable, asking for its restriction or even abolishment.
On the contrary, peace could be considered as morally desirable (King, 1968). Accordingly, the state of peace allows stability, cooperation, and mutual enhancement between societies. More specifically, Israeli diplomat and scholar Uri Savir argues that without the fear of violence, international actors can invest their resources in trade, culture, and sciences instead of military spending (Savir, 2008, p. 25). Moreover, he believes that once peace is planted in a society, more significant political and economic reforms, especially democratization, could start to develop (Savir, 2008, p. 202). The pledge to peace and objection of war could be found in pacifism principles (Fiala, 2018). Pacifist tradition morally denounces the practice of war as an effective means to resolve conflict. Moreover, pacifists actively promote peaceful alternatives to transform the culture of war into a culture of peace, leading to a more sustainable peace within the international community. Historically, pacifism enjoyed its development and popularity with the successes of the civil rights movement (1954-1968) led by American minister Martin Luther King Jr., the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations (1964-1973), and the feature in the UN Charter especially. However, since the 1990s, especially the 9/11 attack, pacifism has since lost its momentum.
It is plausible to argue that the study of pacifism and the promotion of peace have been neglected both theoretically and practically (Jackson, 2019, p. 213). On the surface, the underestimation of
pacifism could be seen as the consequence of it being misunderstood. Accordingly, pacifism is widely perceived as a utopian ideology demanding the absolute abolishment of war on the religious ground. Deepening the matter, however, it could be argued that pacifist tradition has been ignored intellectually because of the consequence of the First Great Debate in international relations theory between realism and idealism in which realism came out as the dominant in the discipline. Consequently, the normative debate within the discipline of International Relations revolves almost exclusively around the theoretical frameworks provided by realism and its variances (Smith, 2016, p. 1). Thanks to the gradual economic interdependence between international actors, liberalism has been allowed to demonstrate its normative power. Meanwhile, pacifism would be deemed as “intellectually inferior”, “politically unrealistic”, and “morally dangerous” (Jackson, 2019, p. 213).
Moreover, by the 1980s, the debate between realism, liberalism, and Marxism in international relations discipline has implied the existence of an “inter-paradigm debate” playing field where theories could compete equally (Smith, 2016, p. 4). British international relations theorist Steve Smith, however, argues that such intellectual pluralism could not exist because realism has always been controlling the debate. More specifically, he believes that the discipline of international relations focuses primarily on the practice of war, and thus, the theory which could offer the most pertinent explanations regarding war would be able to control the field. Such theoretical arguments could be found in the realist tradition, leading to its dominant position in the debate. In consequence, liberalism deals with secondary problems such as trade and institutions with the inclusion of Marxist arguments to explain relative economic power and systemic inequality (Smith, 2016, p. 4). Furthermore, the arguments of realist regarding war and peace have been rarely challenged by Western philosophers (Reader, 2000, p. 170). As a result, in such a war-based world without any open platform for competing theories, pacifist commitments are still considered to be inferior, ideal. Similarly, peace could not challenge its position in the relationship with war. Hence, it is merely referred to as “one point on the continuum of war” (Savir, 2008, p. 2). Generally, while the causes of war and the conditions of peace have always been the most critical topics in the study of international relations, the focus on the use of violence in the form of war seems to predominate the works of international theorists (Smith, 2016, p. 1). “All these theories but the bodies
keep piling up,” which is the heading featured in the introduction of the book International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (4th Edition) by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds)
represents such struggle in the study of international relations.
Historically, Savir observes how the peace-making process has been shaped by realist beliefs when “today’s peace-makers are yesterday’s war-makers” who believe in the use of force as a realistic way to “keep the peace” (Savir, 2008, p. 2). The on-going existence of war and the struggle for peace prove that war and peace are two universal problems more extensive than the nation-states could handle by themseves, and thus, an efficient supranational political order should be needed (Ryan, 2013, p. 978). The Concert of Europe (henceforth the Concert), the League of Nations (henceforth the League), and the United Nations could be seen as the three most well-known attempts to establish an international
organization that could promote peace among international actors. While the Concert and the League no longer exist, the United Nations has contributed to world peace more than its predecessors. Indeed, Sydney-based researcher Peter Nadin lists four main achievements of the United Nations, including norms diffusion, assistance for great powers cooperation, assistance for a state to independence, and humanitarian crises’ mitigation (Nadin, 2019, pp. 13-14). Nonetheless, the United Nations also has to face many challenges, damaging its reputation as the peace-keeper, peace-maker, and peace-builder of the international community. According to the report “Seven Opportunities for the UN in 2019-2020” from the International Crisis Group, despite the UN-led effort, the situations in Libya, Yemen, and Mali gained little successes (International Crisis Group, 2019, p. 2). Moreover, the report also criticized the Security Council for their interest in competing for power: “The P5 members’1 manipulation of the Council to protect partners and clients and to keep the UN out of situations where they wish to have freedom of action, is not new” (International Crisis Group, 2019, p. 2).
Furthermore, the emergence of the human rights revolution, which is motivated by the United Nations itself, could pose a new problem to the United Nations’ operation. According to Canadian academic Michael Ignatieff, the human rights revolution consists of the juridical revolution, the advocacy revolution, and the enforcement revolution (Ignatieff, 2001, p. 5). The juridical revolution was motivated by the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (henceforth UDHR) in 1948, which recognized human rights internationally. Being equipped with such universal acknowledgment, oppressed people and groups could challenge their government, creating the conflict between political communities. Moreover, such universal recognition has been adopted by nations and regional organizations with the aim of enforcing human rights. Additionally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also inspires the human rights-based peace movements at different levels. Thus, it could be argued that the human rights revolution has been contributing to the erosion of the nation-state’s sovereignty. The conflict between human rights and the right of sovereignty or the conflict between the human rights paradigm and the national defense paradigm could lead to civil war or internationalized civil war. The involuntary reaction to such conflict could be explained as the failure of realist restraint and liberal restraint, which was featured in the United Nations’ normative framework. At the same time, the human rights revolution becomes the new motivation of which peace activists could take advantage to demand a cultural change from a culture of war to a culture of peace. According to Savir, a culture of peace prioritizes the equality between personages that could not exist in the culture of war (Savir, 2008, p. 3). As the almost-universal guardian of peace, security, and human rights, the United Nations had to find another alternative, which could balance out such conflict without minimum compromises. Such an alternative could be found in the pacifist principle.
1 The P5 consists of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including China, France, Russian
Federation (henceforth Russia), the United Kingdom (henceforth the UK) and the United States of America (henceforth the USA or the US)
This thesis would attempt to prove the following arguments. Pacifism is an ethically desirable and practical normative framework of peace. However, the value of pacifism has been neglected by the dominance of realism after the First Great Debate in IR discipline. Over time, such dominance of realism has led to the normalization of the logic that military use is inevitable and effective in resolving conflict. The United Nations would be used as a case study for how such an approach in world politics would constrain its success. However, the development of the human rights revolution would lead the United Nations to the moral dilemma between the rights of sovereignty and human rights. Both realism and liberalism could not resolve this structural conflict. Accordingly, such conflict could only be resolved when the culture of war is replaced by the culture of peace, in which both human rights and territorial integrity would be respected. Such characteristics could be found in the pacifist tradition, and thus, it should be re-discovered by the United Nations as the alternative theoretical foundation. Finally, some practical policies, which are inspired by American philosopher Steven P. Lee’s jus in abolitione
belli criteria and the Peace First model of Uri Savir, would be presented as the practical way to integrate
pacifist principles into the UN system.
The thesis would be separated into six chapters as follows, except Chapter I and Chapter VI, which are Introduction and Conclusion chapters, respectively. The other four chapters are:
Chapter II: Pacifism: An ethically desirable and non-ideal normative framework of peace would
introduce the pacifist theoretical framework. Accordingly, pacifism is argued to be morally desirable as follows. Firstly, the practice of war is not only evil but also ineffective in dealing with conflict. Hence, it should be restricted as much as possible except when there is a supreme emergency with greater evil nature. Instead, non-violent measures should be prioritised. Secondly, the commitment to peace makes pacifism morally desirable comparing to other theories in international relations. Despite its desirability, however, pacifism has not been received both intellectually and practically.
Chapter III: Contemporary debate on war and peace: Re-examining the First Great Debate aims
to summarize the contemporary debate on war and peace in international relations discipline. It is plausible to argue that world politics is defined by war. Hence, any theory that put its main framework around war would be deemed as significant. Realism is such a theory. As a result, realism becomes the dominant theory in international relations discipline with widespread support. Overtime, realist assumptions about world politics become a reality as there are few challenges to its position within the field. Consequently, pacifism, which is a normative framework of peace, would be deemed utopian, non-ideal, and even morally dangerous.
Chapter IV: The United Nations and Human Rights Revolution would analyze the relationship
between the United Nations and the Human Rights Revolution. Accordingly, the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the cornerstone of the Revolution. However, such a revolution would challenge the rights of sovereignty, which is protected by the UN Charter. The moral dilemma of the United Nations as the guardian of world peace, security, and human rights is to react to such conflict. Both realist restraint and liberal restraint could not de-escalate such conflict effectively. Moreover, the
use of force would intensify the conflict. Thus, it is reasonable for the United Nations to adopt a new approach. The alternative normative framework has to have the ability to neutralize the conflict between human rights the rights of sovereignty. Furthermore, it also has the ability to create positive peace, which could only be achieved when the culture of peace replaces the culture war. Such characteristics could be found in pacifist beliefs. Thus, it is argued that pacifism should be discovered and re-adopted in the UN system.
Chapter V: Make the United Nations Great Again: Re-discovering Pacifism in the Age of Human Rights would focus on three tasks. Firstly, the relation between pacifist commitment, positive peace,
and human rights would be proven as a practical way to peace. Secondly, it would argue that human rights create the need for intellectual compromises in the normative framework of pacifism, liberalism, and realism. Lastly, some policy proposals inspired by Lee’s jus in abolitione belli criteria and the Peace First model of Savir would be presented as the practical way to integrate pacifist principles into the UN system. Accordingly, the United Nations should re-identify as the legislator, the supervisor, and the sponsor in terms of peace, security, and human rights. As legislators, they would create binding international agreements that protect human rights without violating the right of sovereignty. As the supervisor, the United Nations should not enforce those agreements but give more power to international organizations, primarily regional organizations, to realize those binding international agreements. It should only use violence to enforce these agreements when there are serious violations. Lastly, they should play a sponsor of peace that could assist countries during reconstruction and reconciliation in the post-conflict.
Chapter II: Pacifism: An ethically desirable and non-ideal normative framework of peace
[…]Pax optima rerum, Quas homini Natura dedit[…]
[…] No boon that Nature ever gave to Man, May be compared with Peace […]2 - Silius Italicus (A.D. 26-A.D. 101)
Generally, pacifism denounces violence as an effective means of solving conflict and promoting non-violent alternatives instead (Hunt, 2010, p. 553). Pacifism consists of a wide range of theoretical frameworks and practical political activities, which could not be categorized effectively (Hermann, 1992, p. 875). Indeed, pacifist principles create a continuum from anti-violence in all conduct to the anti-war commitment and its commitment to peace through non-violent measures (Fiala, 2018). As this thesis focuses mainly on the practice of war and peace, their definitions should be mentioned in depth. Additionally, the perceptions of war and peace have a strong association with the understanding of sovereignty. Thus, it is essential to introduce these three concepts, including sovereignty, war, and peace.
II.1. Terminologies: Sovereignty, War and Peace
II.1.1. Sovereignty
While the notion of sovereignty could be perceived in different meanings due to the changing in the political systems over time, its core connotation could be comprehended as “supreme authority within
a territory” (Philpott, 2020). Historically, two milestones, namely the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the aftermath of the Second World War, could be considered as the two defining moments in the understanding of sovereignty. Accordingly, the former could be seen as the foundation of the nation-state system in which each actor is mutually recognized as the possessor of the highest independent power to rule over its residents within their borders (Ignatieff, 2004, p. 147). After the Second World War, however, such right of sovereignty, as well as its facets, have been challenged by the idea that the sovereignty also has the duty to protect and fulfill its inhabitants’ human rights (Weinrib, 2019, p. 21). human rights revolution motivated by a significant number of post-war documents, especially the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would be proven later on as the new motivating force for the peace movement.
The transition between these two eras could be discussed through three facets, including the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty (Philpott, 2020). Firstly, after the Peace of Westphalia, the holder of sovereignty, which have the right of supreme authority was argued to be the nation-state or the leader of the state or both referring statement “L’état, c’est moi”, which means “I myself am the nation”, which is attributed to French King Louis XIV (Rowen, 1961, p. 83). It is important to note that the inclusion of right indicates the legitimacy of the sovereign through laws as “rights are fundamentally creatures of law” (Appiah, 2001, p. 112). The absoluteness of sovereignty represents the scope of matters within the territory under the power of the sovereign. Before the Second World War, every matter within the borders of a state would be of the absolute judgment of the sovereignty’s holder. The Peace of Westphalia acknowledges the “internal sovereignty” and the “external sovereignty” that stand for the absolute power of a state within its borders and its freedom from external interference. More specifically, nation-states could enjoy the territorial integrity and political independence, including the use of force (Alexandra, 2003, p. 591). At the same time, they also have the duty to respect each other’s sovereignty by not interfering in another state’s domestic politics (ICISS, 2001, p. 12). The right of sovereignty could be found in Article 2.13 of the UN Charter while the principle of “non-intervention” is regulated in Article 2.74 of the same Charter. The non-intervention principle and the principle of territorial integrity are under the national defense paradigm.
After the Second World War, however, the notion of sovereignty has been shifting from not only possessing the supreme authority within a territory but also the duty to not violate human rights as well as protect people from human rights violations. Accordingly, with the establishments of inter-governmental institutions such as the United Nations, the European Union, and so on, the absoluteness of sovereignty sometimes transformed into its non-absoluteness form as states have to follow the international standards, protocols and so on. While the holder of sovereignty could still be claimed by diverse authorities, such as kings, dictators, peoples ruling through constitutions, and so on, the existence of international organizations like the United Nations as well as the international recognition of human rights5, however, could equip individuals with a normative framework to challenge and report
3 Article 2.1 of the UN Charter (1945): “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
all its Members”.
4 Article 2.7 of the UN Charter (1945): “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll”.
5Preamble of the UN Charter (1945): “[…]reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and […]”; Preamble
of the UDHR (1948): “[…]THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”.
immoral wrongdoings of the sovereign without considering the legality of the conducts (Ignatieff, 2001, pp. 4-5). Such ground on human rights could be called the human rights paradigm, establishing a new understanding of “external sovereignty”. Accordingly, this perception indicates “the freedom to interfere” in the domestic affairs of other states on the basis of humanitarian intervention (Lee, 2012, p. 114). As could be seen, sovereignty is the foundation for the emergence of rival paradigms, which are the human rights paradigm and the national defense paradigm. Due to its essential value, this conflict would be discussed in depth later on in chapter 4.
II.1.2. War
In this thesis, war would be identified as the systematic and organized use of violent measures between structured political communities for political purposes (Lee, 2012; Fiala, 2018; Ryan, 2013). Traditionally, war was mainly used to indicate the large-scale armed conflict between internationally recognized nation-states (inter-state war) as nation-state is the sole recognized sovereignty within the international community. Overtime, intra-state war (civil war) between domestically political groups, which could include armed conflicts between state and non-state actors, conflicts between non-state actors only, is also granted the status of war. Such recognition was the result of the undeniably visible of instar-state wars after the Second World War. In 2019, for example, it was reported that 82 percent of armed conflicts are internationalized internal armed conflicts while only 6 percent are international conflicts (Escola de Cultura de Pau, 2020, p. 25). Arguably, civil war could pose a threat to world peace when they collapse, leading to large-scale human rights crises, asking for the reaction from the international community. As abovementioned, the human rights paradigm would suggest humanitarian intervention, which would be seen as an internationalized civil war. On the one hand, scholars like German researcher Peter Waldmann believe that violence could bring a better result to civil war than negotiation (Waldmann, 2004, p. 96). On the other hand, opportunistic state and non-state terrorists would take advantage of the situation to intervene, escalating the misery and bloodshed (Ryan, 2013, p. 994).
Generally, war is mainly operated by a hierarchically organized military system (Fiala, 2018), including the leaders/commanders, who could escalate or end the war by giving out orders and the soldiers, who follows the orders from the leadership groups (Lee, 2012, p. 7). Besides, it is fundamental to note that political actors join war for certain political purposes. Mostly, political communities decide to use violence in order to maintain, control or reconstruct the existing political system, which could not be achieved by non-violent measures. Such political purposes would disqualify terrorism as war because most of the terrorist acts do not threaten the attacked country with defeat of the collapse of the
political system. (Ignatieff, 2004, p. 54). Thus, terrorism, which could be described as “a military tactic involving systemic violation of civilian immunity” (Lee, 2012, p. 233) would not be included in the definition of war even though some countries, such as the United States declared “the war on terror” (Bush, 2001). This interpretation of war would also not include its utilization for metaphorical purposes, such as “war on poverty”, “war on Covid-19” and so on.
II.1.3. Peace
It is plausible to argue that there is no consensus on the definition of peace. Thus, there could be many ways to categorize peace6. Due to its emphasis on war and peace, this thesis would only separate the notion of peace into negative form and positive form. Firstly, negative peace reflects the absence of war as well as the fear of mass killing between states or other structured sectional groups (Lee, 2012; Groff, 2018). Such understanding of peace is insisted by another group of peace activists as limited as peace is merely connected to a war-peace relationship with the focus on the national security of the nation-state (Trent & Schnurr, 2018, p. 56). In other words, peace is understood merely as the period between wars (Savir, 2008, p. 2). Instead, the second group believes that peace should be understood in a positive meaning, which connects to cooperation, harmony, and positive human relationships (Fiala, 2018). More specifically, positive peace rejects the idea that peace could be reached when war is absent. Accordingly, the absence of war could be the implication for two kinds of society, namely the negative social order and the positive social order. The negative social order refers to society in which there are systemic violations of human rights despite the absence of war. On the contrary, positive social order implies a genuine society in which human rights are protected and fostered in mutual respect (Lee, 2012; Fiala, 2018). Generally, positive peace promotes social justice wherever possible (Groff, 2018, p. 430).
Since the two Great Wars, negative peace has been perceived as more popular than its positive form as it is argued to be easier to be achieved. The second perception of peace is positive peace/just peace is the peace that pacifist advocates pursue. While there are difference in the understanding of peace, one shared characteristic between them is the desirability of peace or “yearning for peace” like the way Savir describe it (Savir, 2008, p. 1).
6 See more: Linda Groff (2018) separates peace into seven subgroups, namely (1) Peace as absence of war or
physical violence, (2) Peace as the result of the international institution’s balance of power; (3) Peace as the absence of systemic and physical violence on macro levels, (4) Gender/feminist peace, (5) Holistic intercultural peace, (6) Holistic Gaia peace and (7) Holistic inter/outer peace.
II.2. Pacifism: An Introduction
Generally, pacifism is known for its peace advocacy and “the moral renunciation of war” (Coates, 2016, p. 95). Accordingly, the word “pacifism” has its intellectual roots in the Latin combination of paci-, which means peace and -ficus, which means making (Fiala, 2018). While anti-war pacifism would be the main theoretical framework of this thesis, it is noteworthy to briefly mention other pacifist traditions, which against violence, which could be defined as the action that carries out physical harm, damage or destruction to a person or an object (Cady, 2010; Reader, 2000). More specifically, violence could involve small-scale violence, including violence among individuals, small groups, and large-scale violence, including inter-state and instar-state war. As aforementioned, this thesis would only focus on the pacifist tradition that focuses on the practice of war as large-scale violence. Additionally, the terms, such as “war”, “large-scale violence conflict/dispute”, “large-scale armed conflict/dispute”, would be used interchangeably. This thesis would classify pacifism into absolute pacifism, which completely denounces violence and/or war and contingent pacifism, which accepts war when it is the only solution to tackle “greater evil”.
II.2.1. Absolute pacifism
Firstly, absolute pacifist believes that violence in general and war in specific are morally wrong and thus, could not be justified under any circumstances (Lee, 2012, p. 23). Moreover, in order to constrain such moral wrongdoing, absolute pacifism promotes individual virtue and morality (Placidi, 2011, p. 2123). Some absolute pacifist scholars go even further by arguing that the use of force in self-defense could not be justified either (Khatchadourian, 1985; Fiala, 2018; Hermann, 1992; Stevenson, 1934). It is widely perceived that the moral foundation of absolute pacifism could be found in almost all grant religions, especially classical Christianity. Before being officially recognized by the Roman Empire, Christian followers were taught that violence was hazardous to the soul, and thus, as Christ disciples, they should avoid engaging in violent conduct (Reichberg, 2008). Such Christian viewpoint regarding war could be summarized in these passage from the New Testament: “If anyone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Pacifist advocacy could also be found in other
popular religious beliefs, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe that violence is originated from a disturbance in the structure of the soul-substance, leading to the suffering of the flesh (Sibley, 1943, p. 440). Besides, the Confucian tradition distinguishes two types of rulers. A wang literally means a king, who relies on moral force such as benevolence, righteousness, and propriety. A ba is originally a hegemon and relies on physical force. For Confucianism, moral force, not physical force, makes people submit willingly. Hence, wang-dao or the “kingly way” triumphs over the ba-dao or “the way of the hegemon” (Hu, 2006, p. 259).
However, there are also contradictions within religious texts regarding the practice of war. Thus, religious-based pacifism could be criticized harshly by pacifist critics. Furthermore, absolute pacifism also has a strong connection to personal pacifism in which pacifist principles are personal choices (Lee, 2012, p. 22). Morally, individual pacifists believe that evil should only be tackled by good, which is to transform the evil-will into the good-will. Using violent means to put an end to evil could be seen as double evil (Stevenson, 1934, p. 443). As a result, absolute pacifists could refuse to serve in the military or to support a political system that promotes war without condemning others who do not approach the same way (Fiala, 2018; Rosenwald, 2007).
However, absolute pacifism could be seen as an easy target for pacifist critics and opponents. According to British philosopher Alan Ryan, “it is easy” to question the absolutist tradition as the pacifist, who refuse to use violent means to protect people in need must take on the burden of seeing those people suffer from human rights violations or of letting them die at the hands of their enemies (Ryan, 2013, p. 999). Additionally, due to the contradiction within religious beliefs on war and non-violence, it is hard to defend the argument of absolute pacifism against its critiques (Fiala, 2018; Benjamin, 1973).
II.2.2. Contingent/conditional/pragmatic pacifism
The concept of contingent pacifism is promoted by American philosopher Larry May: “Contingent pacifism is opposed to war not on absolute grounds but on contingent grounds, namely, that war as we have known it as has been, and seemingly cannot be, waged in a way that is acceptable” (May, 2008, pp. 25-26). Accordingly, unlike the universal rejection of violence in general and war in specific of absolute pacifism, contingent pacifism may accept the necessity or legitimacy of certain war and reject it in other cases. German theoretical physicist Albert Einstein and British polymath Bertrand Russel, for instances, supports the war against German Reich even though they consider themselves as a pacifist (Fiala, 2018). Additionally, contingent pacifism is more collective-oriented or even state-centered than absolute pacifism. Furthermore, the supporters of conditional pacifism also more secular and goal-oriented than absolute pacifism (Hermann, 1992, p. 878). Indeed, contingent pacifist scholars would justify or criticize war on the basis of empirical and historical shreds of evidence, which would vary from case to case (Fiala, 2018). In general, there are certain numbers of contingent pacifism, which could be distinguished by occasional/situational argument or argument against a certain type of war, the scope of the war, or the use of mass destructive weapons in war.
Thanks to its flexibility, contingent pacifism could be seen as more attractive than absolute pacifism. Indeed, this tradition gains more support than its absolute form. However, one of its weaknesses is the conflicting criteria, which are based on different grounds regarding the legitimacy of war. As the goal of this thesis would focus on the subject of war and peace, contingent pacifism would be of greater significance as the main normative framework. As aforementioned, under certain circumstances, the
use of the military is unavoidable. Thus, the argument of absolute pacifism would not be of great value (Noddings, 2012, p. 107). On the contrary, because of its conditional acceptance of war, contingent pacifism would make a better argument.
However, it is problematic to dissociate contingent pacifism from pacifism. More specifically, there are a certain number of contingent pacifist scholars who divorce their works with pacifism by renaming contingent pacifism as non-violence. For example, American scholar Dustin Ells Howes argues that while absolute pacifism is religiously and morally anti-war and anti-violence ideology, non-violence refers to a set of political commitments without asking for the adoption of absolute pacifism (Howes, 2013, p. 428). Nonetheless, both absolute pacifism and contingent pacifism originated from the same moral foundation that is war could not be seen as a moral and effective reaction to conflict. However, such an argument, itself, is not morally sufficient (Rosenwald, 2007, p. 96). Hence, the most significant difference between them is that contingent pacifist could offer a valuable political dimension to pacifist tradition: a clear vision of peace (Cady, 2010).
II.3. Pacifism: An ethically desirable and non-ideal normative framework of peace
II.3.1 Pacifism: An ethically desirable normative framework of peace
Generally, pacifism consists of the moral rejection of war as war is “avoidable evil” (Teichman, 1982, p. 75) and the positive commitments to peace advocacy through promoting non-violent measures as conflict resolution. Morally, it could be argued that non-violence is more superior than violence (May T. , 2015, p. 161). Firstly, as aforementioned, it is feasible to argue that war is evil and immoral political mean. Indeed, persons have a certain moral status, and they have it because they are persons (Reader, 2000, p. 170). Historically, a large-scale armed conflict could lead to the violation of such moral status on a level that it should not be justified. Secondly, contingent pacifism rejects the belief that war is an acceptable reaction to conflict (Parkin, 2014, p. 631). In his work On Duties, Cicero observes: “There are two types of conflict: the one proceeds by debate, and the other by force. Since the former is the proper concern of a man, but the latter of beasts, one should only resort to the latter if one may not employ the former” (Cicero, 2003, p. 14). War, however, could only be justified when it is the only solution for a greater evil, such as the German Reich, genocide, ethnic cleansing (Parkin, 2014, p. 631). Such exception creates controversy towards contingent pacifist as there is no consensus on criteria for “greater evil”. The following comment from Dr.King's writings indicates such a moral dilemma challenges the commitment of pacifist supporters: “I am no doctrinaire pacifist, but I have tried to embrace realistic pacifism which finds the pacifist position as the lesser evil in the circumstances. I do not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian non-pacifist confronts” (Ihara, 1988, p. 271). Similarly, Indian lawyer Mahatma Gandhi also shares such attitude: “As a matter of fact, the very same line of argument that persuaded me to take part in the Boer War had weighed with me on this
occasion. It was quite clear to me that participation in war could never be consistent with ahimsa (non-violence). But it is not always given to one to be equally clear about one's duty.” (Ihara, 1988, p. 272). Thirdly, pacifist activists do not only follow the life of non-violence but also pursue the goal of peace through non-violent means. The non-violent philosophies of both Dr. King and Gandhi demonstrate such pursuit of peace. Morally, the political successes against injustices, which used to need violence, through non-violent means, represent the practicality of pacifism.
Politically, from historical and empirical evidence, pragmatic pacifism denounces the practice of war as an effective way to tackle conflict. Instead, statements and scholars should aim for a peaceful resolution in order to maintain stability, which is more beneficial to all the parties involved. As a starting point for developing an alternative ethical approach, pacifism offers a more realistic, critical understanding of the nature, consequences, and limits of violence as an instrument of politics or protection. American philosopher Martin Benjamin argues that reliance on conventional military measures could not protect most countries around the world anymore (Benjamin, 1973, p. 274). More specifically, with advanced military technologies and weapons, such as nuclear power and drones, powerful countries/actors would have more advantages in large-scale armed conflict.
II.3.2 Pacifism is non-ideal normative framework of peace
One of the main critiques against pacifism is the thinking that pacifist advocates are passive (Rosenwald, 2007; Benjamin, 1973; Buckham, 1916). On the contrary, due to pacifist commitments to peace, pacifist activists actively advocate against war or social injustices in non-violent protests as well as promote peace (Hermann, 1992, p. 883). In order to response to such doubt on the practicality of pacifism, the best way is to show successful examples.
At the individual level, pacifist authors remain a clear minority, but their moral and political influence is considerable (Cahill, 2019, p. 171). Indeed, Dr. King, Gandhi, could be seen as the two most famous pacifists. From Christian beliefs, Dr. King was the pioneer of non-violent measures against injustices during the civil rights movement as well as the anti-Vietnam war. He argues that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” (King, 1968). Gandhi’s pacifism was also inspired by religions. His activism was not only for social justice, but they were also his experiments with the effectiveness of violence measures against injustices. Morally, he believes that non-violence, justice, and truth are the worthwhile ends. Thus, those who follow the moral point of view must accept the importance of these values (Ihara, 1988, p. 273).
At the national level, the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam war movement in the 1960s and 1970s could be seen as two successful examples of pacifism (Hunt, 2010, p. 554). Japan’s denounce of militarism also could be seen as another success story of pacifism. It is feasible to argue that the Japanese public established an anti-militarist attitude after the Second World War. Glenn Hook argues that: “mass attitudes have been of crucial significance in constraining the normalization of the military
as a legitimate instrument of state power”. As a result, Japan denounced its military and followed pacifist foreign policy (Lind, 2004, p. 102). Another successful story happened during the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003). Accordingly, a coalition of Christian and Muslim women, who non-violently pressured former Liberian president Charles Taylor to attend the peace talks in Ghana, resulting to his exile and the election of Liberian’s first woman president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Cahill, 2019, p. 328).
It could be argued that pacifism had its most successful milestone at the international level when it was featured in the UN Charter. Indeed, chapter VI of the UN Charter was named “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”, in which countries in conflict are asked to use peaceful resolutions to tackle their conflict. Nonetheless, chapter VI has been facing challenges as there is no enforcement mechanism to demand cooperation from the UN’s member states. As a result, countries, especially great powers, tend to resort to the use of violence to resolve disputes. Meanwhile, the valued of pacifism has been underestimated by the dominance of realism in the intellectual debate international relations discipline. Meanwhile, the value of pacifism has been underestimated by the dominance of realism in the intellectual debate international relations discipline. Thus, South African-born philosopher Soran Reader even calls pacifism “the most vulnerable party” regarding the normative debate on war and peace (Reader, 2000, p. 169). Indeed, American scholar Stephen Walt categories international relations into three main paradigms, including realism, liberalism, and constructivism, which includes all the other theoretical approaches. According to him, “realism is likely to remain the single most useful instrument in our intellectual toolbox”. Similarly, American academic Robert Keohane argues that alternative approaches to realism and liberalism could not be seen as legitimate social science unless “testable theories” regarding important issues in world politics are presented (Smith, 2016, pp. 5-6). Such dominance creates a hindrance to the development of pacifism both in theory and in practice. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss the theoretical constraint to pacifism in the next chapter.
Chapter III: The contemporary debate on war and peace: Re-examining the First Great Debate in IR
During and after World War II, the intellectual exchanges between classical realism and idealism, which includes both pacifism and liberalism, creates the first great debate in international relations discipline. (Richmond, 2008; Kurki & Wight, 2016). This chapter would summarize this long-lasting theoretical debate on war and peace within the discipline of international relations. Accordingly, with the emergence of the Cold War, national liberation wars, and so on, realism would be seen as the most pertinent normative framework in the discipline of international theory. Afterward, it would be argued that because of the persistent dominance of realism in the field without little challenges, the “realist world” has been normalized as the “real world”. As a consequence, any other theories that fail to recognize the world as such would be deemed inaccurate, leading to their discredits. As a result, idealism would be classified as of little significance or even utopian theories. While liberalism could avoid such treatment thank the progressively economic interdependence between countries, pacifism could not escape its faith, especially when realism consider pacifist tradition as not only utopian but also morally dangerous. Moreover, as “realist reality” becomes a reality, world leaders also believe that violence in general and war in specific is reasonable mean to cope with conflict, leading to more large-scale armed conflict around the world. In turn, these collective violent escalations would confirm the classic arguments of realism, cementing the culture of war.
First and foremost, the normative framework of realism and liberalism would be introduced as follows.
III.1. Realism
In order to understand the argumentation of realism on war and peace, it is essential to introduce its argument on the state of nature, self-interest, the struggle for power and the basis of morality in the domestic sphere as “both domestic and international politics are a struggle for power modified only by the different conditions under which this struggle takes place in the domestic and in the international spheres” (Morgenthau, 1985, p. 39). According to American political scientist Richard N. Lebow, realists believe that the differences between domestic and international relations are of degree, not of kind (Lebow, 2016, p. 39). In other words, classical realists believe that all politics are the product of human nature, which would share the same pathologies (Lebow, 2016, pp. 36-37).
In the Hobbesian viewpoint, the state of nature means the state without any political authority, which would lead to complete chaos and conflicts (Klosko, 2013, p. 59). Moreover, in the state of nature, there is no exclusive right. This could be interpreted in two ways. The first version is that no one has the exclusive right to anything, including one’s own body. This, however, could also be interpreted in the
second way that everyone has every right to everything, including the right to another’s body. Thus, such a state of nature could also be seen as a self-help system in which everyone has to protect their own security. Self-preservation, thus, would overcome other moral standards as it is the highest morality in the state of nature. Accordingly, in the state of nature, the resources would also be limited as it is not reasonable to produce when one has no right over any property. The need for resources, as well as the protection of resources, would make people see each other as their primary obstacles. Thus, in order to overcome their obstacles to protect their security and resources, individuals would unstoppably try to gain power, which is physical and influential power. American scholar John Mearsheimer even argues that “virtually everyone is born with a will to power hardwired into them” (Mearsheimer, 2016, p. 51) Thus, power becomes human’s self-interest while the struggle for power defines the behaviour of humankind in the state of nature, which would end up in eternal conflict and chaos (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018; Thompson, 1991). To avoid such destiny, individuals choose to surrender their rights, except the self-preservation one to a sovereign who, in turn, would direct and transform the struggle of power into more socially acceptable channels, which are based on laws, institutions, and norms.
Adapting the analogy between domestic and international realm, realists also presume that nation-states, which are the main actors in world politics, are concerned with their security, act in pursuit of their national interests, and struggle for power within the international anarchy (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018). Like the state of nature, international anarchy means that there is no central authority that could manage the international affairs between countries through common standards. Instead, they have to take responsibility for their national interest by trying to obtain power, including military and economic power (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018; Waltz, 1917). The practice of war would be seen as an effective way to prevent competing countries from becoming militarily stronger (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018).
Furthermore, realism claims that the behaviours of nation-states are immune to morality. More specifically, the realist tradition agrees about the existence of moral values. Those standards, however, are not applied to international relations (Lee, 2012; Korab-Karpowicz, 2018) as German international relations theorist Hans Morgenthau argues that “this realist defense of the autonomy of the political sphere against its subversion by other modes of thought does not imply a disregard for the existence and importance of these other modes of thought” (Morgenthau, 1985, p. 16). In other words, the right of sovereignty could be interpreted as the highest moral value that nation-states should pursue, while the enhancement of national power could be seen not only as a nation’s right but also its duty (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018). By the same token at the domestic level, realists also assume about the end of the international community as “a perpetual war” with “the confines of battles”, “frontiers armed” and “cannons planted against their neighbours round-about” (Hobbes, 1998, p. 142). Accordingly, the public connections are fragile and easily weakened by the unilaterally seeking power among individuals, groups, and states, leading to an increase in the possibility of domestic and international violent conflicts. Besides, while the efforts to deal with this phenomenon may succeed for a certain period, the balance of power would be eventually broken when an actor believes that its power is too
powerful to be limited by law and custom (Lebow, 2016, p. 35). This is also why the resolution for the international sphere could not use that of the domestic sphere.
However, American academic Bruce Russette observes that in realist world, the possibility of war is limited because of the following constraints, namely power ratio, allies, and distance and size. Firstly, the power ratio refers to the military power relation between countries. They argue that when that relationship is unbalanced, the weaker side would not choose to go to war as the risk of loss would be too high to risk. Second, realists also see that alliances could be established among countries that share mutual interest and strategy. Among allies, the possibility of military disputes would be reduced as such conflict could put the whole alliance in a more vulnerable position, jeopardizing their power position in world politics. Moreover, having allies would make countries less vulnerable when they have a conflict with a non-ally actor. Thirdly, distance relates to the argument that neighbours have a higher tendency to be in dispute while long-distance could make it harder and more costly to go to war, constraining such practice. Meanwhile, size could also contribute to the possibility of violent conflict in that a country with larger territory would be more likely to choose violence while a smaller country would not choose to do so (Russett, 2016, p. 74).
From such observation, classical realism proposes two principles of limiting the use of force in the international community, namely the principle of balance of power and the principle of equilibrium of power. It could be argued that the former is originated from the power ratio and allies. Accordingly, the hegemon, which is the most powerful country in the system, would use force towards any country that tries to change the status quo. At the same time, to avoid the power abuse of the hegemon, less powerful countries would create alliances to balance the power. In such a mechanism, the status quo would remain (Paul, 2004, pp. 4-5). Nevertheless, the balance of power has contradictory implications for peace, which would be discussed later on. Meanwhile, the equilibrium of power relates to the internal and external facet of sovereignty. According to the Peace of Westphalia, every single nation-state has the right to exist without interference from outside. Thus, the principle of equilibrium indicates that no actor could attack other countries, and no single state or coalitions could become too powerful, damaging the equilibrium (Paul, 2004, pp. 5-7).
III.2. Liberalism
Similar to realism, liberal scholars also believe that world politics happens in an anarchic international environment. Nonetheless, they disagree with the realist argument that countries would see each other as a potential enemy to be eliminated. On the contrary, history also records that countries could live peaceably without the fear of armed conflict, even when there are disputes between them. Moreover, co-operation between nations, especially in industrial areas, has gradually increased, leading to their interdependence. Hence, self-interest could be transformed into mutual interest, motivating countries in dispute to seek peaceful resolution instead of violent measures (Russett, 2016, p. 84). Underpinning
this is the optimistic argument that human nature is not intrinsically violent and, even if it is, social and political norms, regimes and organization could prevent violence (Richmond, 2008, p. 22)
Indeed, such a liberal point of view could be seen in Immanuel Kant’s normative framework, which would be subsequently introduced. As a liberal, Kant believes in the rationality of human beings, the cooperative progress in social life, and the feasibility of a more peaceful and harmonious society. At the international level, such Kantian influences would reflect the thought that war and conflict could be surpassed through liberal restraints of a republican constitution, economic interdependence, and international organization (Russett, 2016, p. 69).
Firstly, classical liberals observe that democratic regimes would be more peaceful, especially to each other. Indeed, democracies rarely use force to tackle the conflict between them. One explanation for such a phenomenon is about norms. Russett argues that democratic governments are convinced that conflict should be managed by negotiation and compromise instead of force and violence. By acknowledging such mutual norms, they would have more trust in the procedure, preventing the practice of war. Another explanation could be linked to the institution. Democratic institutions evaluate war not only based on its nature but also based on costs and benefits. Democratic leaders would have to take responsibility when deciding to go to war, especially when the war is long and costly (Russett, 2016, p. 75). Thus, it is reasonable for American philosopher John Rawls to comment that “there is true peace among them because all societies are satisfied with the status quo for the right reasons” (Rawls, 1999, p. 47). Secondly, liberal scholars believe that economic interdependence would prevent countries from using military force against each other. Accordingly, through the commercial channel, information about interest and preference would be exchanged between countries, avoiding misunderstanding between them. Moreover, the benefits of trading could only be achieved in a peaceful environment, making world leaders more hesitant to think about violent resolutions when conflict appears. Thus, the larger the level of economic co-operations between countries, the stronger the peaceful foundation between them would be established (Russett, 2016, p. 76). Thirdly, liberalism assumes that armed conflict has more chance to happen when political communities could not trust each other or when war could be considered a more useful measure. By promoting international organizations into conflict resolution, more peaceful alternatives to war could be presented, while the lack of trust in each other could be reduced. Indeed, liberals do not underestimate the role of conflict within the international community. They also acknowledge that a single country could not resolve some conflicts or problems. At the same time, the emergence of a wide range of international organizations, including almost-universal one like the United Nations, regional one like European Union (henceforth EU), Association of South East Asian Nations (henceforth ASEAN) and non-governmental one like Greenpeace and so on offer more and more peaceful solutions for conflict as well as the advocacy of peace (Russett, 2016, p. 76).
III.3. Re-examining the First Great Debate in IR
From the end of the First World War to after the Second World War7, he first Great Debate in IR was believed to have happened between realism and idealism, including liberalism and pacifism. Accordingly, after observing the destruction of the First World War, the idealists were motivated to find new institution system, mechanism as well as practice that could limit, or even abolish the practice of war in world politics as well as promote peace (Kurki & Wight, 2016, pp. 15-16). The main goal of idealism was to use reasoning to change the belief that international community conflicts are permanent. Such change should be started in the field of international relations theory. However, this effort was challenged both intellectually and empirically by the realist scholars, including Edward Hallett Carr, Morgenthau, and so on. Intellectually, realists denounce the un-systematic, moral-based approach to IR by the idealist. Empirically, the existence of the two World Wars proved that world politics could not be altered. Peace and morality were accused of being unattainable (Richmond, 2008, p. 47). As a result, the realism claimed the victory in the debate8 while idealism was deemed to be of little significant both in academia and reality. Still, the creation of the League of Nation and the United Nations were referred to as the historical successes of idealism as it demonstrates the firm belief in the possibility of change despite the two World Wars and the failure of the League of Nation to prevent the second one. Thanks to the gradual economic interdependence between countries, liberalism is still received much support. On the contrary, pacifism has been neglected intellectually as realists see it as “morally dangerous” theory. Indeed, realism and pacifism consist of conflicting values. Two main rival arguments between realism and pacifism regarding war are whether war could be abolished and whether should it be abolished. Generally, pacifist commitments would argue that war could and should be rejected. OIn contrast, realist theorists would refuse such arguments as it is impossible to put an end to the practice of war. British political scientist Nicholas Rengger argues: “[T]he pacifist forgoes three particular goods which most people are not prepared to surrender. The first… is my person, which I cannot defend against attack; the second of these are my family and friends, whom, again, I cannot defend; finally, I cannot take up arms against an unjust political order, no matter what the circumstances. […] pacifism, properly understood, must accept these three conditions and recognize, in doing so, that it is
7 There is no consensus on the exact period of the first Great Debate. Indeed, while Joel Quirk and Darshan
Vigneswaran claim it is to be “in the 1920s and 1930s” (Quirk & Vugneswaran, 2005, p. 89), Peter Wilson assumes it around “the late 1930s and the early 1940” (Wilson, 1998, p. 1). Additionally, Milja Kurki, and Colin Wright suggest the duration “before, during and immediately after the Second World War” (Kurki & Wight, 2016, p. 15). This thesis would choose the time from after the First World War until after the Second World War.
8 The term “idealism” represents the victory of realism in the first Great Debate as it was the name realist gave to
liberalism and pacifism. British researcher Peter Wilson considers such action as “realist category of abuse” (Wilson, 1998, p. 1)
surrendering all hope of political success in the conventional sense” (Rengger, 2013, p. 43). Similarly, Jean Elshtain believes that: “Leaders charged with right authority within organized political bodies cannot withdraw from the world, of course, and thus are never pacifists. Anyone who accepts political leadership understands that he or she may be compelled to sanction the resort to force under certain circumstances” (Elshtain, 2003, pp. 55-56). Realists even blame the pacifist-based 1928 Kellogg-Brian Pact for the death number in the Second World War. Accordingly, they argue that because of this pacifist-based treaty, countries hesitated to use the military to prevent the emergence of Nazism in Germany (Lee, 2012, p. 295). As a result, pacifism has been excluded from most of the teaching programs in an academic institution and the intellectual debate on war and peace (Richmond, 2008, p. 30).
After establishing its dominant position in the disciple of IR and meeting little challenges from other theories, realism has been normalized as the most significant explanatory theory in the field. Such normalization of realism would lead to some negative impact as follows. Firstly, it creates an unfair and unjust intellectual platform for international relations theories. More specifically, as no theory could offer the most comprehensive explanation of international affairs, theoretical pluralism should be encouraged so that different perspectives could contribute to finding the truth. However, students of international relations discipline and policy-makers have been taught about the “realist world” as the world. Over time, such a realist point of view has been normalizing by generations of IR academics (Smith, 2016, p. 10). By accepting realism as the most significant one while dismissing pacifism as an intellectual punishment, normative pluralism has been discouraged. Secondly, the dominance of realism also cements the legitimacy of sovereignty and their practices of war as an effective means to conflict (Yamane, 2010, p. 21). Indeed, political actors, who have been under the influence of realist beliefs, may not be aware of how their thoughts and behaviours could be shaped and influenced by specific normative frameworks (Smith, 2016, p. 2). Eventually, they would think of force and war as acceptable and effective means in international affairs, which would confirm the realist argument. On the contrary, Savir argues that while a large number of peace treaties have been signed in the past several decades, their shared struggle to maintain peace between political parties in conflict reflects the wrong direction of peace, which is a product of realism. Accordingly, instead of aiming for peace, the peace negotiators of peace treaties who are also the warmakers would try to maintain stability through the balance of power principle (Savir, 2008, p. 19). Moreover, Austrian scholar Sigmund Freud believes that humans have the “death instinct”, which could lead to the human race destruction when combined with the continuously industrialized warfare (Ryan, 2013, p. 997). Indeed, the philosopher Richard Norman is also concerned about the unpredictability of war: “A major war involves social upheaval on a huge scale, eluding effective human control, and its outcomes are almost bound to be unpredictable” (Lee, 2012, p. 25).
Such a realist spiral would lead to more armed conflict that even the balance of power or equilibrium of power could not control. Normatively, as peace is more desirable than war, such a prediction on
world politics should not happen. Indeed, it would not be likely to happen, especially with the intervention of international organizations. Among international organizations, the United Nations could be seen as the almost-universal and most potent one.
The establishment of the United Nations shows the strength of co-operation, which confirms the liberal arguments. Additionally, the inclusion of pacifism in the UN Charter also demonstrates the desire for peace of the international community. However, the United Nations has been facing many challenges while operating their peace-keeping, peace-making, and peace-building projects. Despite collective efforts, war and large-scale armed conflicts are still happening around the world. More seriously, the development of media creates the international flow of information in which news about war and armed-conflicts, which are now more destructive with the emergence of drones and mass destructive weapons, could reach every individual around the world. After 75 years since its creation, the United Nations could be seen as another failure of idealism if it could not adequately resolve armed conflicts and promote peace. Meanwhile, the United Nations has to cope with other collective demand from the public, including environmental problems, human rights, gender and race equality, and on. Among them, it is plausible to argue that human rights would serve as the new political motivation for the United Nations as it is also the most prestigious human rights regime. The United Nations’ human rights revolution was originated with the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was the first universal recognition of human rights. Such recognition has inspired world citizens to stand up against injustices, which are not only domestic injustices but also universal injustices. The human rights revolution challenges the ultimate right of sovereignty, which is the core value of realism in many countries, leading to the emergence of civil war. The human rights revolution also led to the radicalization of liberalism when democratic countries take advantage of humanitarian reasons to internationalize intra-state conflicts, escalating both the scale and the brutality of war. Accordingly, many democratic countries try to impose their political model on other countries with the aim of a democratic world peace at “the end of the history”, which American political scientist Francis Fukuyama believes to be when Western liberalism gains the final victory (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 3). Thus, the United Nations could not use realism or liberalism as the theoretical foundation for human rights resolution.
In the next chapter, such a dilemma of the United Nations would be explored. Accordingly, it is argued that neither state-centric nor individual-centric should take priority spot in enhancing peace. Instead, the United Nations should adopt a normative framework that could protect individual rights without violating territorial integrity. As an ethically desirable and practical theory of peace, the United Nations should re-discover pacifism values. Normatively, in an intellectually war-centric environment, the understanding of pacifism has been regularly misperceived as a merely anti-war tradition. However, while anti-war is one side of the tradition, pacifist commitments also focus on peace-centric arguments.
